August 2018 - Warangal branch of SIRC of ICAI
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
August 2018
Respected Esteemed Professional Colleagues,
The CA Foundation Day was celebrated on 1st July throughout the country. This year’s
celebrations were historic for us, as we had the Hon’ble President of India, Shri Ram Nath
Kovind launching the Platinum Jubilee Celebrations of ICAI in New Delhi. He lauded the
efforts of Chartered Accountants for their role during the period of transition to the most
landmark and revolutionary legislation i.e. GST.
The hallmark of a Chartered Accountant is being Independent, demonstrating Integrity and
delivering Excellence. We as Professionals have to be independent while discharging our duties
without fearing or favouring the outcome of our decisions. Public at large are substantially
dependent on our reports and take major investment and business decisions. To support the large
segment of stakeholders, we should maintain Independence. Independence means without being
influenced by any stakeholder. Even though client pays us the professional fees, we are exercising
Independence while discharging our duties. Let us continue to do the same with more vigour and
vitality.
During the month of July the Branch has Conducted Joint Seminar along with Hyderabad and
Karimnagar Branches on ONE YEAR OF GST- LEARNINGS, UNLEARNINGS AND EXPECTATIONS. I thank
Hyderabad Branch of SIRC for hosting the aforesaid seminar.
The Independence Day will be celebrated on 15th August, 2018, at Branch Premises commencing
with Flag Hoisting in the morning, followed by Cultural Programs. I request all of you to participate
in the celebrations in large numbers and make it a grand success.
For Members, the Branch is planning to have seminars on Tax Audit, under the aegis of CPE
Committee, ICAI and Seminar on Big Data Analytics, Case Studies, Benefits and Impact on Assurance
Services and IT Security in CAs office under the aegis of Digital Accounting and Assurance Board,
ICAI.
During the month of August, Crash Courses for Students will be conducted besides study circle
meetings. Request students to make use of the same.
The results of CA Exams were declared recently. On behalf of the Warangal Branch of SIRC, I
congratulate the students who cleared their Final CA Exams and are now proud members of ICAI.
We wish them luck and success in all their future endeavours.
I wish all members and students a very Happy Raksha Bandhan, Janmashtami and Independence
Day.
Yours Sincerely,
CA Chanchal Agarwal.
Greetings from Warangal Branch:
Warangal Branch of SIRC of ICAI wishes Happy Birthday and Happy Wedding
Anniversary to all those Members and Students who were born or who got
married in the month of August.
Income Tax Judgments Update Ambati Chinna Gangaiah
agcpower@icai.org
+919391142969
Gist of Judgments of Supreme Court
Name of the Appeal No
Sr.
Appellant / and date of Gist of Judgments / Orders passed
No.
Respondent decision
SLP Dismissed (Gujarat HC judgment in TA 691/17 dt
18.9.17upheld) Purchases already made by the assessee from
Raj Impex were duly supported by bills and payments were
Pr CIT Vs SLP Dairy made by Account Payee cheques, Raj Impex also confirmed the
Tejau Nos. transactions. There was no evidence to show that the amount
1
Rohitkumar 12670/18 dt was recycled back to the assessee. Particulars, when it was
Kapadia 4.5.18 found that the assessee the trader had also shown sales out of
purchases made from Raj Impex which were also shown sales
out of purchases made from Raj Impex which were also accepted
by the Revenue. No question of law arises.
appellant is not covered by the word/expression of
New Okla “Municipality” in clause (e) of Article 243P. Thus, the appellant
Industrial is not clearly included in sub-clause (ii) of Explanation. It is not
AC 792-
Development even the case of the appellant that the appellant is covered by
2 793/14 dt
Authority Section 10(20) except clause (ii). 56. Thus, we are of the
2.7.18
(NOIDA) Vs considered opinion that the appellant is not covered by the
CCIT definition of local authority as contained in Explanation to
Section 10(20)
SLP dismissed (Garment Crafts Vs ACIT in ITA 228/09 dt
SLP Civil
ACIT Vs 28.817 of Rajasthan HC) In that view of the matter, since the
Dairy
3 Garment assessee has already disclosed 21.33%............... The issue no. 2
No.22789/1
Crafts (S.80HHC) is also answered in favour of assessee in view of the
8 dt 9.7.18
judgment as referred above
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) as regards the age of
Kudrat SP (Civil) superannuation. We make it clear that the person selected as
4 Sandhu Vs 279/17 dt Member of the ITAT will continue till the age of 62 years and the
UOI 16.7.18 person holding the post of President, shall continue till the age
of 65 years.
Gist of Judgments of High Courts
As has been found by the first appellate authority and the
Kuthuparamba Tribunal, toddy is a product which is extracted from a tree just
Range as any other agricultural produce is extracted………..The mere
ITA 273/15
1 Kalluchethu fact of a particular agricultural activity having not been carried
dt 20.6.18
Vyayasaya Vs out would not be the sole ground for denying the exemption as
CIT available to the marketing of an agricultural produce when
carried out by the Co-operative Society
Tribunal giving own reasons and findings has found certain
ITA 536- comparables to be good comparables to arrive at an ‘Arms
Pr CIT Vs 537/ 15 dt Length Price’ in the case of assessees with which the assessees
2 Softbrands 25.6.18 may not be satisfied and filed appeals before Court. Therefore we
India P Limited (Karnataka clarify that mere dissatisfaction with the findings of facts arrived
HC) at by the learned Tribunal is not at all a sufficient reason to
invoke Section 260A.
Once this principle was accepted and consistently applied and
followed, the Revenue was bound by it. Unless of cource it
ITA 280/16
Pr CIT Vs wanted to change the practice without any change in law or
dt 28.6.18
3 Quest Investme change in facts therein, the basis for the change in practice
(Bombay
nt Advisors should have been mentioned either in assessment order or
HC)
atleast pointed out to the Tribunal when it passed the impugned
order.
4 Dulraj U. Jain WP Prima-facie, we are of the view that the reasons recorded do not
Vs ACIT 1641/18 dt indicate reasonable belief of the Assessing Officer himself to
6.7.18 issue the impugned notice. Thus, prima-facie, the impugned
(Bombay notice is without jurisdiction
HC)
The intention of the Parliament cannot be taken to have been
to penalize everyone who makes a wrong claim for deduction.
Pr CIT – 8 Vs ITA 43/17 dt
The legislature does not intend to penalize every person
5 Samte India 9.07.18
whose claim is disallowed. This is not the aim of the
Limited (Delhi HC)
legislature. The Tribunal in the facts of this case, therefore,
correctly reached this conclusion.
We note that the prohibition in Second Proviso to Section
158BC(a) of the Act of filing revised return of income before
ITA the Assessing Officer would not prohibit a Assessee from
Alok Textile
118/2003 dt raising the additional claim before Appellate Authorities as
6 Industries Vs
10th July, 18 held by this Court in Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P
DCIT
(Bombay HC) Ltd……..the Appeal of the Appellant on the issue of additional
claim made before the Tribunal is restored to the Tribunal for
fresh disposal on merits
ITAT’s findings amount to supplying reasons in respect of the
ITA 907 & AO’s order, on aspects, which are not expressly reflected in
Pr CIT Vs
1162/17 dt the assessment order. It is no doubt the duty of the CIT to
7 Brahm Dev
20.7.18 record why revision is warranted; however, the ITAT’s
Gupta
(Delhi HC) jurisdiction is not to rewrite the AO’s order and improve upon
it, in a manner of speaking
Gist of Appeal Orders of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Special Benches
These facts would show that there was no urgent business
necessity for the assessee on both the occasions to accept the
loan in cash. Further, the assessee has also failed to
ITA
Deepak Sales demonstrate that on both the dates the assessee was not
6304/Mum
1 & Properties having sufficient funds in its possession.
/12 dt
Vs Addl CIT 23. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view
13.6.18
that the assessee has failed to show that there was a
reasonable cause for getting loans in violation of the
provisions of sec. 269SS of the Act
basic operations are performed by expenditure of human skill
and labour on land by the assessee, which results in the
DCIT Vs ITA raising of the ‘product’ called “Edible white button mushroom”
2 Inventaa 1015/Hyd on the land and as this product has utility for consumption,
Industries /15 dt 9.7.18 trade and commerce, the income arising from the sale of this
product is agricultural income and hence exempt u/s 10(1) of
the Act
“that goodwill will fall under the expression ‘or any other
CLC & Sons business or commercial rights of similar nature’” and, hence,
ITA1976/Del
Pvt. Ltd Vs qualifies for depreciation u/s 32(1) of the Act. We, therefore
3 /06 dt
ACIT - Special answer the legal issue raised in the question before the Special
19.7.18
Bench bench in affirmative by holding, in principle, that depreciation
is available on genuine goodwill.
Other Benches
there is no condition u/s. 80G(5)(vi) of the Act that a minimum
Ursula ITA
amount is to be spent for charitable purposes by the assessee,
1 Hospital 50/Coch/ 17
non granting of approval u/s. 80G(5)(vi) of the Act is not
Society Vs ITO dt 25.6.18
proper.
the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity,
creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants,
ITA 3133/Del
Moti Adhesives thereafter the onus shifted to AO to disprove the documents
2 /18 dt
Vs ITO furnished by assessee and in my view it cannot be brushed
25.6.18
aside by the AO to draw the adverse view which here in
present facts cannot be countenanced
Share of loss in our opinion is nothing but share of negative
income. Explanation (ii) to Section 115JB mandates reduction of
ITA income to which Section 10 applies, if such income is credited in
DCIT Vs Fixit 2833/Chny the Profit & Loss A/c. Ld.AO did was in accordance with Clause(ii)
3
Pvt. Ltd /17 dt of the Explanation and that the Ld.CIT(A) fell in error in relying on
26.6.18 a wrong clause for giving relief to the assessee. Accordingly, we set
aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reinstate the addition made
by the AO.
Excise duty is an indirect tax, payable by the assessee in the
ACIT Vs Taqa ITA
course of its business and is admissible as business expenditure.
Neyveli Power 150/Chny
4 The interest on the late payment of Excise duty, incurred by the
Company Pvt. /18 dt
assessee has to be regarded as compensatory in nature and
Ltd 26.6.18
hence, allowable as business expenditure.
Section 41(1) can be applied if there is a remission or cessation of
Geo Call a trading liability by the creditors. The assessee has maintained a
Connect ITA 4917 claim that the amount was payable to the creditors, which was
5 Services /Del/ 17 dt denied by the authorities simply on the ground that the creditors
Solutions Pvt. 26.6.18 were static. Simply because a particular sum is payable for a
Ltd Vs ITO period of more than three years, cannot lead to an inference of the
attractability of provisions of section 41(1) of the Act
ITA son of assessee who is a legal heir of the assessee and is jointly
Uma Nandwani 1413/Del holding the property even though he may not have contributed in
6
Vs ITO /16 dt the purchase of the said property, exemption u/s.54F cannot be
26.6.18 denied
ITA Once in the earlier assessment years the assessee has been
DCIT Vs India 4457/Del granted exemption u/s.11 and registration u/s.12AA is still
7
Habitat Centre /15 dt continuing, then we do not find any reason as to why benefit of
26.6.18 section 11 should be denied.
insurance claims represent the amount received towards loss of
profits due to flood machinery breakdown and the amount
received from the insurance company is towards augmenting the
ITA
profits lost by the company during the intervening period due to
DCIT Vs Matrix 1629/Hyd
8 machinery break down and, hence, the insurance claims are in
Power Pvt. Ltd. /16 dt
the nature of compensation and originate from the business
27.6.18
activity of the company…….. Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we find no
infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made
by the AO u/s 80IA
.It is a fact that the purchaser had paid Rs. 66. 97 lakhs to the
Society towards pending maintenance charges, so that it could
have a clear title. The assessee had paid Rs 1.38 for maintenance
ITA charges and interest. Clearly, the expenditure incurred by the
DCIT Vs D.C.
7181/Mum assessee and the purchaser towards earlier dues was intrinsically
9 Polyester Pvt.
/16 dt linked with the transfer of the asset. Therefore, in our opinion the
Ltd.
27.6.18 FAA had rightly held that the disputed amount was an
expenditure that was incurred wholly and exclusively in
connection with the transfer of a capital asset by the assessee and
that the same had to be allowed u/s. 48(i) of the Act.
ITA
merely because the assessee offered income of the purchase and
Jagdish Prasad 2121/Kol
10 sale of agricultural land, the income cannot be taxed under the
Goel Vs DCIT /17dt
Income Tax Act, 1961
27.6.18
commission has been paid to him for the services rendered to
ITA assessee outside India. Thus, in view of the undisputed facts of
Alpha Foam
1535/PUN the case and the decisions discussed above, we are of considered
11 Limited Vs
/16 dt view that commission paid to Mohd. Iqbal was not chargeable to
DCIT
29.6.18 tax in India. Therefore, there was no question of deducting tax at
source on the payments made to him by assessee
ITA 893/PUN The excess stock linked additional income partakes not only
Silver Palace
12 /16 dt the character of business profit but the same is eligible, for
Vs DCIT
29.6.18 quantifying the remuneration u/s.40(b) of the Act.
the assessee herein has purchased its own shares under
buyback scheme and the same has been extinguished by
ITA
Vora Financial reducing the capital and hence the tests of “becoming
532/Mum
13 Services Vs property” and also “shares of any other company” fail in this
/18 dt
ACIT case. Accordingly we are of the view that the tax authorities
29.6.18
are not justified in invoking the provisions of sec. 56(2)(viia) for
buyback of own shares.
notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued prior to the furnishing
of return by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 148 of
Halcrow Group ITA 5163/Del
14 the Act. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act was
Vs ADIT /10 dt 2.7.18
not valid and the reassessment framed on the basis of said
notice deserves to be quashed
Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish
Maheshwari vs. ACIT and Anr. (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC), the
provisions of Section 153C deserves that if the AO not
Sanjay
ITA 140/Agr recorded a satisfaction for the issue of notice 153C of the Act,
15 Chobey, (HUF)
/18dt 2.7.18 the proceeding deserves to be quashed rather than giving the
Vs ACIT
AO another chance to record proper reasons, when the AO not
followed the procedure in law, the addition made deserves to
be deleted.
amount of loan was accepted by entry. However, there was no
ITA receipt of money through cash or cheque or any other mode by
ITO Vs SRB
16 2506/De/15 the assessee. Even the money was given on behalf of Sh.
Investment
dt 2.7.18 Kuldeep Bishnoi was through account payee cheque, hence,
the penalty is not sustainable
AO observed that the returned income comprised of income
from Leave & License........ Tribunal delivered in the case of
Bhuvan for the AY.2006-07(supra),we decide the first effective
ground of appeal against the AO,as the facts of both the cases
ITA
DCIT Vs Tierra are similar....... Second effective ground of appeal is about
17 5534/Mum
Landpro LLP allowing the expenditure for carrying out the business.As
/16 dt 4.7.18
stated earlier,the AO had held that income arising to the
assessee was to be assessed under the head income from
house property and that no expense was to be allowed in that
regard.The FAA had allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
assessee sold his rights so acquired to purchase the flats to
M/s Baniara Engineers Pvt. Ltd., and Nitu Jain by nominating
Baniara Engs.
ITA 635/Kol them for registration of the said two flats……..Section 50C of
18 Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
/18 dt 4.7.18 the Act does not apply under the facts and circumstances of
ITO
the case as what was sold was right in property but not land
or building
Suffice to say that the affiliation fee cannot be considered as
Customer Lab
ITA 438/HYD taxable income of non-resident so as to attract TDS
19 Solutions Pvt.
/17 dt 4.7.18 provisions. Therefore, the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act
Ltd Vs ITO
does not arise on the facts of the case.
Giriraj Enterprises,(186TTJ146) the Tribunal had held that
generation of electricity by wind mills amounted to production
ACIT Vs Smt. ITA of an article or thing, that claim made by the assessee for
20 Deepali Atul 7251/Mum additional depreciation on purchase of wind mills
Ganatra /16 dt 4.7.18 u/s.32(1)(iia) was to be allowed………..the order of Giriraj
Enterprises (supra),we decide the effective Ground of appeal
against the AO
but at no stretch of imagination expenditure shall be treated
Free Trade as income, unless such expenses is unexplained within the
Union ITA 3080 To provisions of section 69C or such expenses has not be
21 Multipurpose 3084/Mum/1 substantiated with evidences………Therefore, we are of the
Project Trust 6 dt 4.7.18 considered view that no addition can be made towards
Vs ITO expenditure incurred for objects of the trust, purchase of car
being capital in nature and treated as such in books
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that the provisions of
Industrial Area Development Act applies to the NOIDA and
therefore, it is entitled to exemption of TDS u/s 194A (1) of the
Bank of Baroda ITA 698/Del
22 Act. ……….., we reverse the order of the lower authorities and
Vs Addl CIT /16 dt 5.7.18
allow the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee was
not obliged to deduct the tax at source of payment of interest
made to NOIDA u/s 194A of the Act.
section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are contained in chapter IV-D of the
ACIT Vs Act dealing with the “Profit and Gains of Business and
Construction ITA 916, 238 Profession” and become operational only when income is
23 Industry and 239/Del assessable under that head and since the income is earned by
Development /18 dt 5.7.18 the assessee has been held as exempt under section 11 and
Council 12 of the Act, the rigours of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of
the Act cannot be applied to the facts of the assessee.
order passed on 20/06/2008 levying the penalty of Rs. 25
Sarvottam ITA Lacs on the assessee is clearly beyond 6 months from
24 Construction P. 1650/Del/09 09/03/2006 when the proceedings of penalty were initiated
Ltd Vs ACIT dt 11.7.18 with issuance of show cause notice, and , therefore, is barred
by limitation
assessee furnished the names, addresses, PAN and
confirmations of the sundry creditors. In the instant
case, the learned CIT(A) categorically stated that after
examining the assessment records, the assessee had
DCIT Vs ITA
furnished the confirmation for more than 97% of the
25 Surinder 1661/Del/1
amounts outstanding. Therefore, we are of the view that
Kumar Mehta 4 dt 11.7.18
the adhoc addition made by the AO by disallowing 50%
of the sundry creditors particularly when the purchases
had been accepted, was not justified and the learned
CIT(A) rightly deleted the same.
DCIT Vs ITA 587 & the expenditure on professional indemnity insurance has been
26 Deloitte 588/Kol/16 incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business
Haskins & Sells dt 11.07.18 and is an admissible deduction.
Assessing Officer is directed to dispose of the objection filed by
ITA1809
Land Marvel the assessee for reopening of assessment and thereafter re-
27 /Chny/16 dt
Homes Vs ACIT examine the matter on merit, if necessary and decide the same
12.7.18
in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity
we may further observe that as the repair works are
undertaken at the overseas work stations of the assessee,
therefore, the question of taxability of such receipts from
DCIT Vs
3711/Mum/2 rendering of the repair work as attributable to PE of the
Cameron
28 016 dt assessee in India does not arise. We thus, in terms of our
Australasia Pty.
13.7.18 aforesaid observations conclude that the A.O had erred in
Ltd
holding that the revenue from repair activities rendered by the
assessee to ONGC was taxable in India under Sec. 44DA of the
Act.
DCIT Vs ITA 5245/Del donation received by the assessee cannot be taxed u/s
29 Maharaja /15 dt 115BBC(I) . The other observation of the Ld. CIT (A) was that
Agrasen 17.7.18 AO is justified for making such addition u/s 68, however still
Technical the assessee will get exemption u/s 11, because the same
Education have been applied for charitable purpose
Society
return filed by Assessee on-line has been accepted and
ITA 1845/Del covered u/s 206(3) of the Act, so, when there was no
ITO Vs Jai
30 /15 dt requirement of filing the return on quarterly basis, penalty
Beverage
17.7.18 order passed by Assessing Officer is not sustainable in the
eyes of law
reliance is misplaced in as much as section 150(1) of the Act
ITA
contains the provisions for cases where assessment is in
Seco Overseas 6636/DEL
31 pursuance of an order of appeal etc. This section does not
Ltd Vs ITO /13 dt
permit the first appellate authority to pass orders on issues
18.7.18
which were never the subject matter of appeal before him
Applying the ratio laid down in these decisions, we find more
merit in the assessee’s alternative plea for netting off the
interest income against pre-operative expenses. On this
Shristi Hotel ITA 395/Kol
alternative plea, we hold that the AO should have netted off
32 Pvt. Ltd Vs /18 dt
the interest income against pre-operative expenses incurred by
DCIT 18.7.18
the assessee in connection with its setting up of the hotel
project and the AO is directed to re-compute the assessee’s
total income accordingly
“that goodwill will fall under the expression ‘or any other
CLC & Sons business or commercial rights of similar nature’” and, hence,
ITA1976/Del
Pvt. Ltd Vs qualifies for depreciation u/s 32(1) of the Act. We, therefore
33 /06 dt
ACIT - Special answer the legal issue raised in the question before the Special
19.7.18
Bench bench in affirmative by holding, in principle, that depreciation
is available on genuine goodwill.
All the labour force including the maistry has to do the work
ACIT Vs ITA 138/Viz under the supervision of the assessee and maistry is only a
34 A.Kasiviswanad /17 dt facilitator for payments…….payments made to labour
ham 20.7.18 maistries does not attract the TDS and consequently no
disallowance is called for u/s 40(i)(ia) of IT Act
did not allow the expenditure spent outside the R & D unit but
the Bench has not considered the explanation introduced with
reference to ‘Clinical Trials’. By very nature, the Clinical Trials
DCIT Vs ITA 1604 &
cannot alone be done within research facility as they require
35 Aurobindo 1605/HYD/1
cooperation from the Medical Doctors, Hospitals, Volunteers
Pharma 6 dt 20.7.18
and patients, therefore such expenditure has to be necessarily
spent outside the facility, but for the purpose of ‘in-house’
research.
The provisions of section 273-B mandates that penalty is not
to be levied if a reasonable cause is established. In the present
ITA
Sri Anjanadri case, the Parliament had inserted section 272A in the
1669/Bang
36 Education provisions of section 273-B only by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f.
/16 dt
Trust Vs DCIT 01/04/2012. Therefore, during the previous year relevant to
20.7.18
assessment year under consideration, levy of penalty is
mandatory even if there is a reasonable cause
following its own order for AY 2003-04 to 2005-06 held that no
disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(i) on account of
ITA 6326
DCIT Vs Taj TV programming cost paid to various non residents and also
37 /Mum /16 dt
Ltd payments made to M/s PanAM Sat International System Inc.
20.7.18
towards transponder charges for failure to deduct tax at
source
ITA we are of the view that the CIT(Appeals) was fully justified in
ITO Vs
1748/Bang allowing exemption u/s. 10(37) of the Act on the interest
38 Sangappa S.
/17 dt received by the assessee u/s. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,
Kudarikannur
20.7.18 1894
The condition precedent for claiming benefit u/s 54F is that
the capital gain should be parted by the assessee and invested
ITA
either in purchasing a residential house or in constructing a
Sanjay Sharma 1958/Bang
39 residential house. Merely because the sale deed had not been
Vs ACIT /17 dt
executed or that construction is not complete and it is not in a
20.7.18
fit condition to be occupied does not disentitle the assessee to
claim s. 54F relief
Section 43(1) of the Act defines actual cost as “the actual cost
ITA of the assets to the assessee………Actual cost is the sum
DLG Farms Vs 1673/Bang actually paid by the Assessee. The asset in question was
40
ITO /18 dt acquired during the previous year and therefore what would
20.7.18 be relevant for allowing depreciation is the actual cost paid by
the assessee.
ITO Vs The ITA held that interest earned from investment with sub-treasuries
Mannanam 142/Coch and Banks was part of the banking activities, and therefore,
41
Service Co- /18 dt the said income was entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of
operative Bank 23.7.18 the I.T. Act.
ITA. 525 & Burden would not be on the Assessing Officer to find these
Virender
548/DEL/20 parties and to search a corroborative material in the whole
42 Narang Vs
03 world. It would be the duty of the assessee to rebut the
DCIT
dt 23.7.18 presumptions contained u/s 292C of the Act
MAT tax credit, inclusive of surcharge and education cess etc.,
Consolidated ITA 3739/Del if any, should be reduced from the amount of tax determined
43 Securities Ltd. /15 DT on the total income after adding surcharge and education
Vs ACIT 26.07.18 cess, etc. Only the resultant amount payable will suffer
interest under the relevant provisions of the Act
income over and above amount for Rs. 25 lacs from the
business activity i.e. from the exploitation of its right to hold
Chandigarh ITA
Davis Cup will be treated as ‘business income’ of the assessee
Lawn Tennis 1382/Chd
44 and will be liable to include in its total income. The assessing
Association Vs /16 dt
officer, therefore, is directed to bifurcate the income from
ITO 26.7.18
commercial activity and non-commercial activity and assess
the income of the assessee as directed above
ITA 139/
DCIT Vs SPS the said loss in foreign currency derivatives in the instant case
45 Mum /16 dt
share Brokers be assessed as business loss and not as speculative loss.
27.7.18
restricting the assessee’s deduction claim to the extent
ITA 1420/Kol
ACIT Vs residential portion of the building only by treating the same to
46 /16 dt
Jitendra Seth be “a residential house” as per the true legislative intent u/s
27.7.18
54F of the Act.
Central Board of Direct Taxes
3. Henceforth, appeals/ SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the
tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:
Before Tribunal Rs. 20,00,000
Before High Court Rs. 50,00,000
Before Supreme Court Rs.1,00,00,000………
1 Circular No.3 Dt 11.07.18
13. This Circular will apply to SLPs/appeals/ cross objections
/references to be filed henceforth in SC/HCs/Tribunal and it shall
also apply retrospectively to pending SLPs/ appeals /cross
objections/ references. Pending appeals below the specified tax
limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/ not pressed
Notification Income Tax (8th Amendment) Rules 2018 – amending Form 3CD –
2 20.7.18
GSR (E) came into force from 20.7.18EXCEL TIPS
-CA Dungar Chand U Jain, Madurai
DATEDIF Function
This DATEDIF function is a hidden function in Excel. As the name suggests, this functions helps calculate the
difference between two given dates in years, months, days etc.
Knowing the syntax of DATEDIF function is very important as Excel will not provide any help on this function.
Syntax
=DATEDIF(BeginDate,EndDate,"Interval")
BeginDate : This is the earliest of the two dates.
EndDate : This is the most recent of the two dates.
"Interval" : This indicates what needs to be calculated. Intervals parameters are as follows.
"y" Years between the two dates.
"m" Months between the two dates.
"d" Days between the two dates.
"yd" Days between the dates, as if the
dates were in the same year.
"ym" Months between the dates, as if
the dates were in the same year.
"md" Days between the two dates, as if
the dates were in the same month
and year.
Illustration 1:
A B
1 Begin date 15-Aug-47
2 End date 01-Aug-18
3
4 Formula used Results in
5 Years 70 =DATEDIF(B1,B2,"y") Years between the two dates.
6 Months 851 =DATEDIF(B1,B2,"m") Months between the two dates.
7 Days 25919 =DATEDIF(B1,B2,"d") Days between the two dates.
8 Year days 352 =DATEDIF(B1,B2,"yd") Days between the dates, as if the
dates were in the same year.
9 Year months 11 =DATEDIF(B1,B2,"ym") Months between the dates, as if
the dates were in the same year.
10 Month days =DATEDIF(B1,B2,"md") Days between the two dates, as if
17
the dates were in the same month
and year.Alternatively, the formula without links can also be given. The same is as follows
=DATEDIF("15-Aug-1947","01-Aug-2018","y")
Combined formula can be used as follows :
Years 70 =DATEDIF(B1,B2,"y")
Months 11 =DATEDIF(B1,B2,"ym")
Days 17 =DATEDIF(B1,B2,"md")
=DATEDIF(B1,B2,"y")&" Years, "&DATEDIF(B1,B2,"ym")&" months, "&DATEDIF(B1,B2,"md")&" days."
Results in 70 Years, 11 months, 17 days.
Illustration 2: (Assumed the same is run on 1-Aug-2018)
A B C
1 15-Aug-47
2
3 Years 70 =DATEDIF(A1,TODAY(),"y")
4 Months 11 =DATEDIF(A1,TODAY(),"ym")
5 Days 17 =DATEDIF(A1,TODAY(),"md")
6
7 Age is 70 Years, 11 ="Age is "&DATEDIF(A1,TODAY(),"y")&" Years,
Months and 17 Days "&
DATEDIF(A1,TODAY(),"ym")&" Months and "&
DATEDIF(A1,TODAY(),"md")&" Days"
8
9
10
11Tax Evasion in Post-GST Regime
Posted On: 31 JUL 2018 6:00PM by PIB Delhi
The number of cases of Tax Evasion reported post-GST regime are given in Table below:
Period Detection
No. of cases Amount in Crore
July 2017 to June 2018 1205 3026.55
The nature of cases include misuse of Input Tax Credit, mis-declaration in the GST Returns, tax
declared in GST Returns & not paid, and cases where GST returns not filed and Tax not paid.
The details of number of entities claiming GST refunds based on fake invoices being reported to the
Government are as under:
Period Detection
No. of cases Amount in Crore
July 2017 to June 2018 5 23.49
Based on intelligence received/developed, appropriate action is taken under law to protect the
Government revenue.
This was stated by Shri Shiv Pratap Shukla, Minister of State for Finance in written reply to a
question in Rajya Sabha.
****
By Arpan Bohra (CA, CS, B.com)
Arpan.bohra@gmail.com
+91-9030499151Glimpse:
Chartered Accountants Day
Flag Hoisting at Branch
Premises.
Chartered Accountants Day
Flag Hoisting at Branch
Premises.Glimpse: Organized Blood Donation Camp on the Eve of Chartered Accounts Day. Organized 5 Days GST workshop for Women’s at Padmavathi College, Wgl
Organized Stress Management & Healthy Living at ICAI Branch Presmises.
Plants Distribution at
ITT Center of Branch.
Sapling of Plants at
Branch Premises.Distribution of Prizes to the winners of Students Sports Competition. Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed or implied in the Warangal Branch of SIRC of ICAI E- Newsletter are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Warangal Branch of SIRC of ICAI. Material in the Publication may not be reproduced, whether in part or in whole, without the consent of Warangal Branch of SIRC of ICAI Address: Warangal Branch of SIRC of ICAI. H.No: 14-1-124, Venu Rao Colony , M.G Road , Warangal - 506002. Cell: 8801318888.., E-Mail : Warangal@icai.org.., Website: icaiwgl.org
You can also read
